Paul Stewart: Wait, So Why Was That Goal Disallowed?

1. With the goalie inside his crease, an attacking player makes incidental contact with the goalie at the same time the puck is about to enter the net.

2. With the goalie just outside his crease, an attacking player makes incidental contact with the goalie at the same time the puck is about to enter the net.

3. An attacking player has been pushed toward the goalkeeper by a defending player, careening heavily into the goaltender as the puck is about to enter the net.

4. An attacking player has been pushed into the goalkeeper by a defender, attempting and failing to twist out of the way to avoid contact, and the puck enters the net.

5. A defending player has been pushed into the goaltender by an attacker, making incidental contact with the goaltender as a goal is about to be scored.

6. There is a loose puck around the net, and an attacking player makes incidental contact with the goalie in the crease as both are attempting to play a loose puck.

7. An attacking player, remaining in constant motion skates through the width of crease, does make contact with the goalkeeper but impedes the goalie's freedom of movement to go across and attempt a vase.

8. An attacking player sets up a screen by standing in a stationary position on the crease line. The goalie's vision is impaired and the puck goes into the net.

9. With an attacking player inside the crease, the goaltender initiates contact with the opposing player as the goalie tries to get squared for the shot. The attacking player vacates the position immediately and the puck simultaneously enters the net.

10. A goalie initiates contact with an attacking player to establish position in the crease by hitting the opponent in the back of his helmet with his blocker. The opposing player vacates the crease immediately at the time a goal is scored.

1. Goal disallowed, no penalty.
2. Goal
3. Goal disallowed, penalty.
4. Goal
5. Goal disallowed, penalty to attacking player.
6. No penalty.
7. No penalty.
8. Goal disallowed
9. Goal
10. Goal

1. Goal disallowed, no penalty.
2. Goal
3. Goal disallowed, penalty.
4. Goal
5. Goal disallowed, penalty to attacking player.
6. No penalty.
7. No penalty.
8. Goal disallowed
9. Goal
10. Goal
- Streit2ThePoint

Agree with all but 8. Sounds like a classic screen to me. Why don't you think it is allowed?

And on 3. if you are truly pushed in by a defender then no penalty to you as I understand it.

Agree with all but 8. Sounds like a classic screen to me. Why don't you think it is allowed?

And on 3. if you are truly pushed in by a defender then no penalty to you as I understand it.
- vipeviper

I think his answer to #3 is assuming "careening heavily into the goalie" means the contact was not incidental and there was no attempt to avoid contact. There is some ambiguity in the way it's worded.

So the situation I envision is that the defenseman pushes a forward towards the goalie, and instead of making an attempt to avoid the contact, the forward takes advantage of the push to go hard into the goalie. I think in a situation like that, you're looking at non-incidental contact and no attempt to avoid contact despite the fact that the defender's push caused the collision. Think of Jordan Tootoo's hit on Miller back in 2011, although I'm not sure Ehrhoff pushed Tootoo into Miller so much as Tootoo was a dbag on that play.

Otherwise, I think Streit2ThePoint is correct on #1-6. I would differ on #7-10 as follows:

#7 is no penalty as Streit2ThePoint said, but if a goal is scored it would be disallowed. I add the second part because I assume there was a shot on the play since the goalie was attempting to make a save (or "vase"), but we aren't told if it went in or not.

#8 is a good goal since he's on the crease line and not inside the crease. Unless the attacking player is Tomas Holmstrom and his butt is near the crease. That would be a penalty and no goal.

#9 is no goal and no penalty.

#10 is no goal and penalty on the goalie.

1. No goal. Goal is disallowed.

2. Good goal.

3. I agree with JetpackJesus, the wording is very ambiguous. This would be no goal. The goal is disallowed due to the interference of the attacking player. However depending on the severity of the of the player careening into the goalkeeper and the attacking player's ability to avoid contact there should be no penalty. Obviously the severity of contact that could result in a penalty would be up to the judgment of the on ice official. As it's stated I would think the play would result in no goal, no penalty.

4. Good goal.

5. Typically I believe this would be a good goal. Again, it comes down to the exact definition of "incidental contact" with the goaltender. Depends on the exact situation.

6. Play continues, no penalty.

7. No goal. Goal is disallowed, no penalty.

8. Good goal.

9. Good goal.

10. Delayed penalty on the goalkeeper for roughing. Good goal. Penalty is wiped out by the good goal that is scored. Play results in a goal for the attacking team and a 5 on 5 situation.

Good article. Great discussion.

I think his answer to #3 is assuming "careening heavily into the goalie" means the contact was not incidental and there was no attempt to avoid contact. There is some ambiguity in the way it's worded.

So the situation I envision is that the defenseman pushes a forward towards the goalie, and instead of making an attempt to avoid the contact, the forward takes advantage of the push to go hard into the goalie. I think in a situation like that, you're looking at non-incidental contact and no attempt to avoid contact despite the fact that the defender's push caused the collision. Think of Jordan Tootoo's hit on Miller back in 2011, although I'm not sure Ehrhoff pushed Tootoo into Miller so much as Tootoo was a dbag on that play.

Otherwise, I think Streit2ThePoint is correct on #1-6. I would differ on #7-10 as follows:

#7 is no penalty as Streit2ThePoint said, but if a goal is scored it would be disallowed. I add the second part because I assume there was a shot on the play since the goalie was attempting to make a save (or "vase"), but we aren't told if it went in or not.

#8 is a good goal since he's on the crease line and not inside the crease. Unless the attacking player is Tomas Holmstrom and his butt is near the crease. That would be a penalty and no goal.

#9 is no goal and no penalty.

#10 is no goal and penalty on the goalie.
- JetpackJesus

That's how I perceived it. The attacking player did not try to avoid the contact, taking advantage of the push as you stated.

#8 I change to good goal. I misread and thought there was contact.

#9 I think is a good goal because the goaltender is the one who initiates the contact, not the attacking player. And because the attacking player immediately moves once the goaltender contacts him.

#10 Wasn't sure so took a stab at it. I agree with JetPackJesus and Flash4